STACK 

STACK  ANN! 

500 
8479 


sioiil 


BY  RABBI  MARTIN  ZIELONKA 


Based  on 

digious  Liberty — The   Great  American 
Illusion"  by  A.  C.  Diffenbach. 


TEMPLE  Mr.  SINAI 
EL  PASO,  TEXAS 


Stack 
Annex 


Stack 


Is  ^Religious  Liberty  the^ 
at  oAmeri 
Illusion? 


Great  ^American 

J 


Based     on     "Religious     Liberty — The 
Great  American  Illusion"  by  A.  C. 

Dif  fenbach. 

By   Rabbi   Martin   Zielonkka 


"The  doctrine  that  ought  to  be 
preached  in  every  pulpit,  Protestant, 
Catholic,  Jewish  and  on  every  corn- 
er, is  that  the  spiritual  belief  of  the 
individual  must  have  unrestricted 
freedom  for  its  natural  development 
and  its  own  form  of  expression,  be- 
cause for  one  thing,  sincere  religious 
conviction  is  the  vital  element  in 
political  progress.  The  denial  of 
both  the  principle  and  the  practice 
of  religious  liberty  and  not  any  the- 
ories about  religion  is  the  greater 
ci'ime  in  this  day,  for  without  such, 
America  as  we  know  it,  could  not  ex- 
ist and  cannot  survive."  And  yet — 

"In  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  of  this  Republic  there  has  been 
a  steady  degenracy  of  religious  inde- 
pendence. The  proof  is  to  be  seen 
in  the  intolerant  and  organized  de- 
mands made  for  the  first  time  in  Am- 
erican history  upon  one  legislature 
after  another  by  church  leaders  not 
ii;  one  section  only,  but  in  every  part 
of  the  land.  There  is  hardly  a  state 
\\hich  has  not  been  attacked.  The 
Fundamentalist  is  not,  as  some  be- 
lieve, a  Southern  religious  phenom- 
enon. He  is  typical,  innumerable, 
as  large  a  part  of  Massachusetts  and 
Minnesota  as  he  is  of  Tennessee  and 
Texas.  A  cross  section  of  any  State 
will  show  that  America  has  a  Funda- 
mentalist mind." 

These  two  quotations  present  the 
ideal  and  the  reality  of  American 
life.  We  love  to  boast  of  American 
freedom,  especially  American  Relig- 
ious Freedom  and  we  claim  that  it 
is  the  backbone  of  American  civil- 


ization.  And  yet,  is  that  a  fact?  Does 
a  study  of  American  life  show  an 
ever  increasing  love  for  liberty  and  a 
broadening  tolerance  towards  minor- 
ities that  permits  them  to  develop 
naturally  and  add  their  part  to  the 
culture  of  the  next  generations? 
What  does  the  past  tell  us  and  what 
does  the  present  disclose? 

Dr.  Diefenbach  excuses  the  writing 
of  his  book  by  the  statement  that 
"Everybody  is  from  twenty  years  to 
a  generation  behind  except  in  the 
things  he  has  studied.  It  is  true  of 
the  layman  in  religion.  That  is  why 
this  book  is  yritten." 

Everybody  believes  himself  an  au- 
thority on  religion.  And  the  less 
he  thinks  of  it  the  more  sure  is  he 
of  his  own  convictions.  And  if  those 
convictions  are  shared  by  a  group 
and  that  group  is  the  majority  group 
in  the  city,  county  or  state,  he  feels, 
in  the  words  of  Wuliam  Jennings 
Bryan — "You  can  do  what  you  please 
if  you  have  the  votes." 

Now  that  may  be  true  in  many 
matters  but  it  cannot  be  true  of  re- 
ligion and  it  does  not  heln  in  promot- 
ing Religious  Liberty.  For  after  all 
"A  man  may  rely  upon  the  author- 
itv  of  another  for  an  opinion  in  law, 
in  medicine  or  in  business,  to  serve 
his  civic  rights,  his  health  or  his 
property  but  in  these  things  his 
spiritual  condition  is  involved.  For 
his  character  he  must  rely  upon  him- 
self because  only  what  he  himself 
knows  and  experiences  can  be  of  anv 
service  to  him.  He  must  prove  all 
things.  He  must  have  perfect  liber- 
ty. To  the  man  who  said  he  believ- 
ed in  being  moderately  liberal  Can- 
non Liddon  suggested  that  it  meant 
as  little  to  him  as  that  a  woman 
should  be  moderately  virtuous." 

While  many  may  agree  with  this 
theory,  their  actions  prove  a  contrary 
conception.  They  say,  as  a  well 
known  French  journalist  wrote 
"Gentlemen,  when  you  are  in  power, 
we  claim  liberty  in  the  name  of 
your  principles:  when  we  are  in  pow- 
er we  refuse  it  to  you  in  the  name  of 
our  own." 

What  "many  eminent    and    brave 


churchmen  of  every  Protestant  faith 
are  agreed  is  that  freedom  from  ex- 
ternal authority,  the  release  from  the 
binding  creedal  dogmas  are  absolute- 
ly imperative,  not  only  for  a  true 
Christian  Church  but  for  the  relig- 
ious salvation  of  the  people,"  but 
when  the  practical  problem  is  pre- 
sented they  act  differently.  The  con- 
flict has  been  on  since  the  founding 
of  this  people.  It  was  not  written 
into  the  constitution  but  was  placed 
as  one  of  the  first  amendments. 
Thomas  Jefferson  was  the  outstand- 
ing leader  in  favor  of  complete  sep- 
aration. He  asked  that  his  tombstone 
bear  but  two  facts — that  he  was  the 
founder  of  the  University  of  Virgin- 
ia and  the  author  of  the  Bill  of  Relig- 
ious Rights. 

And  the  history  of  our  people  is 
the  repetition  of  this  story  of  con- 
flict. The  Baptists  love  to  "refer 
to  John  Bunyan  who  remained  for 
years  in  Bedford  prison  rather  than 
allow  a  civil  magistrate  to  dictate 
where  he  should  go  to  Church  or 
what  he  should  preach.  But  it  is  the 
Baptists,  led  by  men  like  John  Roach 
Stratton,  who  today  help  to  make  a 
law  in  Tennessee  which  dictates  what 
shall  be  taught  to  the  whole  people." 

"The  Presbyterians  refer  to  the 
fight  of  the  Scotch  Covenanters 
against  Bishops  and  prayer  books, 
yet  drive  Harry  Emerson  Fosdick 
from  one  of  their  great  pulpits. 

"The  Methodists  tell  how  cheer- 
fully John  Wesley  went  about  in 
England  defying  mobs  and  overcom- 
ing them,  and  yet  they  harassed  and 
broke  the  heart  of  one  of  their  most 
lovable  teachers  for  his  Bible  Crit- 
icism. 

"The  Episcopalians  refer  with 
pride  to  those  burnt  at  stake  op- 
posite Balliol  College,  and  now  they 
threaten  and  silence  their  clergy  es- 
pecially Bishop  Lawrence  who  dared 
question  the  literal  truth  of  the  Apos- 
tles Creed." 

Thus  does  Dr.  Dieffenbach  indict 
the  great  religious  forces  of  Ameri- 
ca and  thus  does  he  draw  the  con- 
clusion— "In  no  creedal  church  was 
there  a  single  defeat  of  any  Funda- 


mentalist  dogma.  That  holds  to  this 
day.  In  five  years  they  have  won 
control  of  the  churches  with  a  total 
memoership  running  into  more  than 
30  million  souls.  The  Fundament- 
alists possess  the  land." 

And  yet — "No  genuine  American 
would  silence  the  Fundamentalists. 
To  do  so  would  be  to  commit  the 
same  spiritual  and  democratic  blun- 
der that  now  curses  the  country." 
For  "you  can  guarantee  a  man's 
property  rights  by  the  force  of  law 
but  you  can  preserve  his  freedom  of 
soul  only  by  the  spirit  of  free  and 
tolerant  religion." 

Have  conditions  improved  since 
De  Toqueville  wrote  in  1830  that 
"there  was  no  country  where  there 
was  less  independence  of  thought 
and  less  real  liberty  of  discussion 
than  in  America?"  Have  conditions 
changed  sine  Dieffenbach  wrote  this 
book,  so  that  we  can  say  that  Relig- 
ious Liberty  is  a  reality  and  not  an 
illusion?  Or  do  the  facts  of  the  most 
recent  present  tell  us  "that  religion 
now  seems  an  enemy  of  both  educa- 
tion and  liberty — the  churces  have 
been  brought  to  a  status  hardly  high- 
er in  spiritual  value  than  that  of  a 
Chamber  of  Commerce." 

Let  us  look  at  the  most  recent 
facts  that  have  come  to  public  not- 
ice. 

Durant,  in  his  recent  book  "Tran- 
sition", describes  how  he  with  other 
liberals  went  to  Tarrytown  to  speak 
against  the  treatment  given  the  Col- 
orado Coal  Strikers  and  how  he  and 
his  fellows  were  hit  by  over  ripe 
fruit  in  various  stages  of  decay.  Not 
only  was  the  foundation  of  American 
life — freedom  of  speech,  denied,  but 
the  fundamental  of  all  religions,  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  and  therefore, 
mutual  responsibility,  was  denied 
also. 

Miss  Maude  Royden,  famous  Eng- 
lish preacher  and  head  of  Guild 
House,  London,  comes  to  the  United 
States  for  a  lecture  tour.  She  is  a 
woman  of  exceptional  talent;  she  is 
a  woman  who  has  performed  heroic 
tasks  in  religious  endeavor;  she  is  a 
woman  of  spotless  reputation  and  one 


to  whom  the  young  womanhood  of 
England  looks  for  guidance.  A  re- 
markable character  and  a  keen  mind 
combine  to  give  her  place  and  posi- 
tion in  the  religious  life  of  the  Eng- 
lish speaking  people. 

But  all  her  talents  are  wasted,  her 
life  work  useless  and  her  power  for 
good  blasted  when  the  Woman's 
Home  Missionary  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Oak 
Park,  111.,  learns  that  she  indulges 
in  an  occasional  cigarette.  They  can- 
cel her  contract  for  a  lecture  and 
they  set  forth  to  the  world  the  rea- 
son— she  smokes.  Just  what  possible 
influence  this  could  have  on  her  abil- 
ity as  a  lecturer  or  detract  from  her 
power  as  an  influence  for  good,  no 
one  can  discern.  She  naturally  an- 
swers— "You  might  just  as  well  say 
that  chewing  gum  is  of  religious  mo- 
ment." And  just  why  men  who  lec- 
ture before  this  organization  are  per- 
mitted to  smoke  or  their  contracts 
are  not  canceled  because  they  smoke 
and  the  same  privilege  is  not  granted 
to  woman  one  cannot  understand. 
Perhaps,  as  one  newspaper  comments 
— "Miss  Royden  will  discover  that 
our  most  grievous  sin  is  the  sin  of  in- 
tolerance." 

And  if  this  is  the  feeling  within 
the  group,  how  can  we  expect  a  more 
liberal  attitude  toward  the  outside, 
especially  when  the  "roup  has  the 
power  of  numbers  to  enforce  its  de- 
mands. This  is  one  of  the  signs  of 
the  times  which  proves  the  place  of 
religious  liberty  in  the  American  en- 
vironment and  it  does  not  prove  that 
it  is  something  real  and  not  an  illus- 
ion. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
rises  the  Senator  from  Alabama  and 
attacks  and  castigates  the  Catholic 
Church,  the  faith  that  guides  the  lives 
of  millions  of  our  citizens.  And  when 
urged  to  cease,  he  continues  his 
ramblings  until  the  Senator  from 
Arkansas  and  the  party  leader  on 
the  floor  is  forced  to  rebuke  him 
and  to  openlv  state  that  he  speaks 
for  his  party  while  the  other  man  is 
simply  speaking  as  an  individual 
and  without  authority  to  s*nak  for  his 


group.  In  answer  thereto  he  is  told 
that  if  he  came  to  Alabama  and 
delivered  such  addresses  he  would  be 
taken  out  and  "tarred  and  feather- 
ed." Senator  Heflin  may  have  said 
later  that  he  was  onhr  joking  and 
that  in  the  heat  of  debate  words  arc 
uttered  that  ought  not  to  be  taken 
literally,  but  the  fact  remains  that 
words  spoken  under  such  conditions 
usually  reflect  the  secret  thoughts 
of  the  individual,  they  are  the  real 
thoughts  that  come  forth  when  the 
thinking  faculty  is  not  under  the  con- 
trol of  caution  or  prudence.  It 
speaks  not  well  for  Religious  Liberty 
as  the  back-bone  of  democracy  if, 
within  the  Legislative  halls  even  one 
man  should  rise  and  utter  such  words. 
For  we  expect  those  who  represent 
us  at  such  places  to  be  well  grounded 
in  the  American  traditions  and  fun- 
damentals. The  thesis  of  Dr.  Dief- 
fenbach  that  Religious  'Liberty  is 
only  a  great  American  Illusion  seems 
to  be  carried  out  when  we  note  such 
occurances. 

These  are  the  most  recent  cases 
that  have  come  to  public  notice.  In 
each  community  there  may  be 
brought  forth  incidents  recent  or 
farther  removed  that  will  give  color 
to  similar  indictments. 

Is  there  no  cure  for  this  condi- 
tion? Will  the  battle  go  on  for  un- 
told generations  with  liberalism  los- 
ing its  ground  more  and  more?  Will 
we  continue  to  pass  laws  as  were 
enacted  by  Tennessee  or  achieve  sim- 
ilar results  by  edict  of  a  Text  Book 
Commission  as  was  done  in  Texas? 
"When  they  make  such  a  law  they 
stultify  religious  liberty  and  ravish 
the  soul  of  America  which  was  dedi- 
cated to  freedom.  They  violate  the 
principle  of  separation  of  Church 
and  State." 

There  is  a  solution  and  it  can  be 
of  value.  There  must  be  a  change  in 
the  church  and  in  the  individual.  It 
is  not  an  easy  process,  but  it  is  an 
effective  one,  if  we  will  only  give  it 
a  trial.  Ministers  must  recognize 
that  the  chief  business  of  the  church 
is  religion,  and  not  politics  and  not 
bickerings  in  doubtful  ethical  values, 


but  upon  religious  fundamentals. 
The  individual  citizen  must  appreci- 
ate that  "only  in  so  far  as  citizens 
are  willing  to  sacrifice  themselves  can 
States  exist."  These  two  axioms  for 
progress  in  any  republic  must  be  rec- 
ognized if  we  want  to  make  Religious 
Liberty  a  glorifying  factor  instead 
of  the  great  American  Illusion.  The 
state  must  guarantee  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  faith,  and  "Religion 
must  not  be  chiefly  a  federation 
against  social  ills,  but  a  mighty  power 
for  spiritual  emancipation."  Therein 
lies  our  hope  and  our  salvation.  The 
religious  forces  of  America  have  used 
their  power  against  social  ills  and 
neglected  their  opportunities  for 
spiritual  emancipation.  If  they  will 
use  their  power  for  the  latter  and 
withdraw  from  the  former  then  will  a 
new  era  rise  for  us  and  for  future 
citizens  of  America.  If  they  refuse  to 
do  that,  then  they  will  make  the 
boast  of  our  founding  a  greater  il- 
lusion as  the  days  pass  on  and  our 
experiment  will  end  in  failure.  We 
still  have  hopes  that  the  religious 
forces  of  America  will  unite  on  a  pos- 
itive program,  instead  of  a  negative 
one,  that  they  will  foster  the  fine 
spirit  with  which  our  Republic  came 
into  existence  and  renou.-ce  the  polit- 
ical power  for  which  they  have  been 
striving  and  that  they  will  accept  the 
advice  found  in  their  own  testament, 
"to  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar's  and  unto  God  the  things 
that  are  God's,"  (Mark  12:17;  Ma- 
thew  22:21.) 

Thus  as  positive,  instead  of  nega- 
tive forces  they  will  make  Religious 
Liberty  a  Reality  and  not  an  Illus- 
ion. Amen. 


Of  CALIF.  LIBRARY,  LOS  AI 


A     000  075  260     o 


